The New Eugenics Movement - Part 2
The New Eugenics Movement - Part 2
The trillion dollar biotech network that wants to edit your genome to make you a better person, and wants us off social media.
I hope by now you all had chance to read Part 1. In case you haven’t it’s here:
You might want to make yourself comfortable for the next part, it’s not quick but it will be worth it.
To introduce where we are going next I’ll try and outline this in the way that a few memes have done during COVID, outlining the “safe and effective” claims that are rapidly being retracted
•It’s just a vaccine
•It stays in the arm
•It only lasts a few days
•It doesn’t integrate into the genome
•It’s not gene therapy
•There is no DNA in the vaccine
•It doesn’t go to the nucleus
•It’s safe in pregnancy and doesn’t go to the placenta
•It doesn’t stay in the arm, it goes everywhere but that’s a good thing
•There is plasmid contamination but it’s only in small doses and there is no evidence that it causes any harm
•OK, it goes to the placenta but that means that the baby is protected too-—[YOU ARE CURRENTLY HERE]—-
•OK it’s gene therapy but we’ve been using it for years and it’s been safe and effective with no adverse events identified after billions of doses.
•The LNP technology was brand new and hadn’t been tried but it’s been safe and •effective with no adverse events identified after billions of doses.
•The same technology can be used for CRISPR gene editing which is now approved by the FDA and in combination with the LNP technology can be used to provide a permanent vaccine that you never need to get updated with boosters and repeated ouchie injections
Because as we all know, it was really the 2 seconds of a needle prick that caused half the world’s population to reject the new therapy until the vaccine mandates kicked in and nothing to do with the fact that most people would have rejected a novel gene therapy if they knew what it actually was.
And yes, it was gene therapy however much the courts try and obfuscate the issue by claiming that doctors who not only were forced to take the product but were co-opted to administer the product under false pretences don’t have standing, and have now ended up on the receiving end of a judicial misconduct complaint.
And how do we know it’s gene therapy? Well because the FDA1, Moderna, BioNtech and every other institution that know what it actually is says so. From the 2024 FDA document (copied in the footnote):
Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. FDA generally considers human gene therapy products to include all products that mediate their effects by transcription or translation of transferred genetic material, or by specifically altering host (human) genetic sequences. Some examples of gene therapy products include nucleic acids, genetically modified microorganisms (e.g., viruses, bacteria, fungi), engineered site-specific nucleases used for human genome editing, and ex vivo genetically modified human cells…. https://www.fda.gov/media/76647/download.
And yes, we discussed this previously but the point here is that we are going to get to this point soon:
“Yes it [the COVID vaccine] was gene therapy but nobody denied that and in any case 6 billion doses were given with no adverse events. And now we know that gene editing is equally safe.”
Because that has been happening all along. Gaslighting 101. Because novel pharmaceutical products are always going to be safe if you make sure that no research papers are allowed to talk about how unsafe they are, and you harass intimidate and threaten the doctors publishing said research.
So now that we have established beyond a reasonable doubt that gene therapy vaccines (GTVs) are safe and effective with no papers showing that they induce cancer via insertional mutagenesis or any of the other problems causing excess deaths that we are seeing in the real world, we can be happy that CRISPR gene editing, which provides a permanent solution to your gene problem, will be the ideal replacement for those ouchie repeated injections that were the real reason that people had “vaccine hesitancy” (other than institutionalised racism, of course)
What the hell is CRISPR?
Well it’s nothing to do with bacon or chips or crisps or fried chicken although its name is clearly intended to conjure up some briefly-fulfilling emotion. It’s a technique for editing genes and genomes.
CRISPR stands for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats” which relates to a specific pattern of DNA that are the target of the gene editing technique that also requires a “Cas” protein e.g. Cas9. The Cas protein forms a complex with a “guide RNA” to guide where the DNA is cut and once cut, new DNA can be added. Just like splicing a video tape in the old days.
Here’s a bigger version of the graphic above to explain it, from the Genetic Literary Project (which we will come to later)
In the old days, CRISPR was reserved for editing genes in cells in the lab but as TheScience™ has advanced we now have the capacity to alter the genome of cells in vivo. That means, altering the genome in living organisms including humans.
And obviously it’s totally safe and effective - or at least that is what you will be told - because they found a way to check for all those pesky off-target (unintended) proteins that might arise from chopping up your genome whilst you’re still alive. And of course all the the known problems associated with in vivo CRISPR will have been ironed out already, just like they did the mRNA vaccines. Unfortunate though for the kids that already died due to immune responses or insertional mutagenesis:
Jesse Gelsinger, an 18-year-old with a mild form of the genetic disease ornithine transcarbamylase (OTC) deficiency, participated in a clinical trial which delivered a non-mutated OTC gene to the liver through a hepatic artery injection of the recombinant adenoviral vector housing the therapeutic gene. Unfortunately, Jesse passed away 4 days after treatment (7). The adenovirus vector triggered a much stronger immune response in Jesse than it had in other patients, causing a chain of multiple organ failures that ultimately led to his death (8). At the time of the trial, adenoviral vectors were considered reasonably safe. In preclinical development, however, two of the rhesus monkeys treated with the therapy developed a similar pattern of fatal hepatocellular necrosis (9). Shortly after, another gene therapy trial led to the development of leukemia in several young children induced by insertional oncogenesis from the therapy (10). These trials opened for two forms of SCID (SCID-X1 or common ɤ chain deficiency) and adenosine deaminase deficiency (ADA). The therapy used ɤ-retroviral vectors for ex vivo delivery of therapeutic transgenes to autologous CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells, which were reintroduced to the patients (10). Five patients developed secondary therapy-related leukemia, one of whom died from the disease (11). Further investigation revealed integration of the therapeutic gene into the LMO2 proto-oncogene locus, presumably resulting in the development of leukemia (12). Subsequent analyses have suggested a higher frequency of insertional mutagenesis events with ɤ-retroviral vectors relative to other vectors (13).
Of course CRISPR is so much fun that the Sasha lab designed a game to nudge you into believing that introducing it widely into the population would be a cool thing to do. Like dropping hot chips from the sky. I mean, who doesn’t like hot chips right?
To quote from their article:
CRISPR — it’s one of those new science technologies that’s fun to talk about because who doesn’t want to to imagine a better future made possible by science? But whose version of “better” would prevail? The “what if’s” made possible by CRISPR gene editing technology are under intense debate by the international science community. Because these debates already affect policy decisions, the public needs to consider the ethical ramifications of what CRISPR could make possible.
Can you see the nudge here? Remember the greater good from Part 1?
Of course. Why would you NOT want to enhance the genetic pool of the world to make us all better humans, instead of those shitty humans we were yesterday, right?
And how similar does this graphic from the article about the Sasha lab game look to the trolley problem discussed in Part 1?
CRISPR needs a PAM
Getting back to the subject, essentially in order for CRISPR to edit your genes you need:
(1) a PAM2 and
(2) an RNA gene sequence matching the area of the genome you are targeting
The PAM is a tiny gene sequence (nGG where ‘n’ is any nucleotide e.g. CGG) that exists in multiple places of the genome. The RNA sequence is included to target any bit of DNA that you are interested in, provided it is next to a PAM. So you need a PAM and an RNA fragment. The most responsive PAM (of four options AGG, CGG, TGG and GGG) is CGG.
To see more about the PAM and how it works I would recommend 5 minutes on this fascinating video just showing how clever nature is, and how bacteria learnt to fight viruses using this genomic anti-viral defence mechanism.
If you’d rather just look at a graphic here it is showing the PAM and the “Guide RNA” or gRNA (the sequence that the scientist uses to match the sequence in your DNA that they want to cut)
So if you want to edit the genome at a specific place you need to find a unique gene sequence next to a PAM site.
Well, you will now be pleased to know that the majority of the world has been provided such PAM sequences for free when they consented to receive a recombinant gene therapy vaccine courtesy of Pfizer, Moderna (and probably Novavax too3).
You see, those vaccines contain plasmids which are DNA and can easily integrate into your own cells’ DNA, as demonstrated by multiple authors but most recently Kevin McKernan and Hiroshi Arakawa who confirmed the integration of plasmid DNA into chromosome 12 and chromosome 9. I warned that this was likely here.
The great news about this integration event is that in both cases shown above, there is a CRISPR-Cas9 PAM sequence (CGG, AGG, GGG or TGG) in the sequence that has been integrated into the genome. This is fantastic news if you wanted to then subsequently edit the genome of the recipients of your drug at precisely the place you had previously added DNA!
And as it happens, the process of “codon optimisation4” of the gene sequence of the COVID vaccines (the process by which Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax decided to create a whole new 3822 nucleotide sequence that was different from the Wuhan Spike gene sequence yet supposedly produced the exact same amino acid sequence) produced a huge increase in the number5 of PAM sequences - particularly of the most efficient CGG type. What a lucky coincidence!
So the genomic integration event that has arisen out of what you thought was just a vaccine but turned out to be gene therapy has now conveniently provided the two necessary factors for subsequent gene editing - lots of PAM sequences and specific genome sequences that weren’t present in the human genome prior6.
In other words, 6 billion people are potentially now ready to be the recipient of a straightforward gene editing process that can replace your rusty old COVID vaccine sequence and replace it with a shiny new gene for pretty much anything.
Of course, because the people involved in the gene editing industry are super nice people they wouldn’t think to do such a thing would they?
Well let’s look at who they are… before we assume that they have all been acting altruistically.
The Corporate Behemoth of the Gene Editing Industry
It is essential to understand that gene editing is very expensive - upwards of $1million a pop. Bad news for the consumer but excellent news for the companies behind it who stand to make - not billions - but trillions of dollars if they can get this product into people like they did with the COVID vaccines.
And wouldn’t you just know it? When the COVID vaccines were flying off the shelves and before we were allowed to find out that they weren’t all they were promised to be, the price of the Big 4 CRISPR corporations’ stock went through the roof. Then came crashing down as fast when problems with the mRNA vaccines started to be noticed.
So who are the players behind these CRISPR corporations and the technologies that underpin them?
Well the biggest player is Jennifer Doudna, co-inventor of CRISPR.
Here she is talking about her utopian vision of the world, where elite scientists like her can edit the genome of cows to make them fart less, thus saving us all from climate change. No, I’m not kidding.
This is the important bit of what she says (from 5:14):
We know the poorest countries and people are the most affected by climate change, and it's a problem created by the wealthiest people. And methane is a big part of the problem. It's been a major contributor to rising global temperatures since preindustrial times. Specific microbiome compositions in livestock can actually reduce methane emissions by up to 80 percent. But doing that today currently requires daily interventions at enormous expense, and it just doesn't scale. But with precision microbiome editing, we have an opportunity to modify a calf's microbiome at birth, limiting that animal's impact on the climate for its entire lifetime….
So our technology could really move the needle in our fight against climate change.
So Jennifer Doudna, the inventor of RNA and holder of an obscene number of patents potentially worth trillions of dollars wants to edit the genome of animals (and presumably “poor” humans) for political causes.
Great. Who’s next? (Don’t worry, this gets worse).
Here’s another group of scientists involved in normalising gene editing as just the same as any other medical treatment. Peter Singer wrote the foreword to the “Handbook of Bioethical Decisions7” which should be a guide for scientists not to step over the bounds of messing with humanity’s basic building blocks of life. Luckily Peter is also a co-author on this “controversial” article defending eugenics. Yes you read that right, defending eugenics.
Yay!
And his co-author Jonathan Anomaly wrote this edgy piece about how you can all be treated as “public goods”, which cleverly embraces the totalitarian ethos of “the greater good” with the concept of humans being public property (see Part 1).
Fortunately for the world it is not just the Doudnas, Anomalys and Singers of the scientific world that are in charge of our genomes. The funding for much of this industry comes from none other than people like the infamous Jeffrey Epstein who literally tried to create his own eugenics retreat.
And here he is meeting with the eugenicists “genomic improvers” at Harvard, including leading CRISPR scientists George Church and Eric Lander (h/t Jesse Matchey, who was cancelled from twitter for 2 years for exposing this).
As ridiculous as it seems, Jeffrey Epstein founded and funded Harvard’s creepily named “program for evolutionary dynamics” - which for most people might be more reasonably named “eugenics program”. He spent a lot of time with people from the “Skeptics society” who you will have seen disparaging “Antivaxxers” on twitter. Their purpose is presumably to prop up the stock of the biotech companies, because if they were to allow dissenting scientists to speak freely on social media that stock would collapse.
The “Skeptics” include people like James Randi, who was part of a long running identity theft fraud that was eventually prosecuted, and Loren Pankratz who fraudulently claimed expertise in order to defend pedophiles in court8. The de facto leadership of the Skeptics movement passed to David Gorski who now runs a hate campaign via multiple blogs against people who try to speak out against the Epstein-Pharmaceutical conglomerates, as well as Richard Dawkins who has happily defended “mild paedophilia” again and again9.
As an indication of the arrogance of these people, the Skeptics Society’s Lawrence Krauss maintains his page on The Edge (a Jeffrey Epstein founded media organisation10, see below) proudly describing the meeting of 21 “Skeptics” physicists on Epstein’s now infamous island.
One of the major players in the CRISPR money making megalith mentioned above is George Church, with 20 companies under his belt - just to show how altruistic he is.
Altruistic George of course has no vested interests in persuading you (the public) to adopt this technology as a backbone for all medical treatments, that would attract royalties for one of his myriad of patents, because he’s so altruistic.
He’s so altruistic in fact that he wants gene editing technology available to everybody, “rich or poor”11. This would of course be fantastic news for the gene editing corporation stocks, who need their share of those trillions of dollars. “Rich or poor” means, as in the case of the the COVID mRNA vaccines, that the treatments are “free” (which actually means is that you will get those treatments, mandatorily or otherwise, paid for by “the government”). “The government” means the money laundering process that takes public funds and diverts them without consultation or transparency to the pharmaceutical companies like George’s. Very, very altruistically of course.
And George is also very happy to get you to donate your genome to Nebula Genomics, one of his many companies, for “whole genome sequencing”. Imagine what such a company would do with that information whilst at the same time advocating the idea of living forever through genome editing, according to this disturbing interview with Stephen Colbert. In the interview George seems happy to resurrect a woolly mammoth genome and put it into another animal (or presumably human), just like in The Island of Dr Moreau - the creepy chimaeric dystopian novel written by the eugenics-adjacent HG Wells (also mentioned in Part 1).
The other guy mentioned in the MIT/Epstein meeting is Eric Lander who some of you might recognise as having been elevated to the US presidential cabinet after the debacle of COVID and before he had managed to ditch his $million+ vaccine stocks. But I’m sure that didn’t influence the demand for vaccine mandates in the US at all.
Worse still, Eric Lander also heads the Broad Institute in Boston, home of Editas - one of the Big 4 genome editing corporations who have been in a patent catfight with Jennifer Doudna’s West Coast empire for a decade.
And you might have noticed that George Church is part of the “Genetic Literacy Project” (which also loves Eric Lander) and which you might think sounds like some nice touchy feely NGO. You’d be wrong. It has contributors such as Eliza Dunn (Monsanto-Bayer’s famous medical spokesperson who likes to tell us how safe RoundUp and gene editing are and how the Indian farmers didn’t really commit mass suicide because of their products). And Kevin Folta, the “sustainable doctor fighting disinformation” who wants you to just eat the GMO crops and shut up.
The eagle eyed of you will notice the link to “skepticalinquirer.org” which is indeed one of the main journals of the Skeptics society listing its members including Kevin Folta, Steven Pinker (Epstein affiliate), Steven Novella - lead Skeptic, Richard Dawkins and David Gorski. It also includes Paul Offitt - the supposedly independent but now infamous lead member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee (VRBPAC) and his nickname is “for profit” due to his numerous conflicts of interest.
These networks are nudging you all into accepting gene editing as normal, safe, and with no risk of collateral damage. Yet you won’t be the ones decided who gets edited, what gets edited, and who decides whether the editing is mandated.
Show them the money
Those networks do not just involve the overt companies set to make trillions. When this much money is at stake insiders like me are just an annoying fly needing to be swatted.
And that is literally what they do. Here is an infamous twitter account who not only is posting about CRISPR biotech stocks on twitter but overtly manipulating those stocks with coded phrases like “haircut coming in 2021” and “send it 📉” meaning to short the stock.
But ".” (apparently short for “Ryan” “Jason” and a bunch of other pseudonyms) is not just posting his stock bets on twitter. Nope, he was also discovered to be the the prolific “Community Notes” writer “Enterprising Desert Raven” who robotically posts notes to twitter attempting to undermine any post that is critical of the COVID vaccines or in fact any gene therapy or pharmaceutical product. The link between the anonymous Ryan/Jason account and “Enterprising Desert Raven” was found in February when there was a bug on twitter which meant that if you blocked an account the community note belonging to that account would disappear from view12.
Unfortunately for Enterprising Desert Raven this relentless manipulation of scientists’ views in relation to suppression of the safety concerns over a product made by a corporation who might benefit from this undue social media manipulation might be reasonably considered a form of securities fraud.
To drive the point home here are his tweets in conjunction with the $CRSP stock price. This is called a “pump and dump” scheme.
The problem for the Biotech stocks people like Ryan is of course pesky mice interfering with their ability to pump and dump or otherwise manipulate the stock price of corporations that have been discovered to be lying about the validity of their products. So then what they need to do is attack those mice (scientists) - and get them off twitter as I showed back in 2021.
And it’s not just me. Scientists who have used their real names have been targeted, harassed and threatened by people with vested interests in the “create a pandemic, create the solution, make billions of dollars” pipeline.
The same network resulted in this post from the Jikkyleaks twitter account which explains the networks attempting to blackmail and intimidate into silence scientists speaking out in the public interest.
Of course this is not their first rodeo, as we have mentioned before. Yet nobody went to jail for abusing the medical regulators as drug mules, resulting in an estimated 30,000 deaths just from Vioxx alone:
The web runs wide and deep
So far this article has merely scratched the surface of the networks involved with this huge Biotech mafia power grab, where the prize is measured in hundreds of trillions of dollars.
The Big 4 gene editing companies are one huge cartel encompassing the main academic centres between Boston (Harvard, Cambridge MA) on the East Coast and UCSF on the West Coast. They are:
INTELLIA - Founded by Jennifer Doudna. Partnered with Regeneron.
CRISPR - Founded by Emmanuel Charpentier (Doudna’s patent partner).
BEAM - Founded by David Liu & Feng Zhang
EDITAS - Founded by Feng Zhang & George Church
You essentially have a multi-trillion dollar monopoly in the hands of five people. They aren’t even independent between the East and West Coast entities because Doudna herself moved from one to the other to set up the UCSF entity known as the Innovative Genomics Institute. Just to cement the point over the kinds of social media manipulation networks that are present, the inventor of the twitter Community Notes (Jay Baxter) algorithm was found to be linked to this small twitter account that turned out to be a scientist at Jennifer Doudna’s IGI.
In other words, such people are embedded in the twitter influence networks which are there to ensure that nobody is allowed to talk about the problems with their products13 - just like Vioxx.
Harvard - the modern hub for academic fraud.
It’s not just Jeffrey Epstein that leaves a bad smell at Harvard. Harvard and its linked entities have been mired in viable accusations of academic fraud over the last 2 years, with two camps fighting over who to smear the most.
Apart from the fraud involving the Dana Farber cancer centre there is a huge stink over the suspension of the female Professor Francesca Gino on the basis of a claim of data fraud involving some of her psychology papers. The same stink has managed to evade her male co-author on the same paper(s), Dan Ariely. The following graphic involving some of the players mentioned above as well as the infamous satanic artist Marina Abramovic may give a clue as to why Ariely, but not Gino, escaped persecution by Harvard14.
In fact the stench at Harvard reaches into the corners of all its affiliated organisations. Remember that Brigham and Women’s was the home of the Surgisphere scandal which falsely discredited hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine was eventually shown to reduce mortality from COVID by more than half, indicating that the actions of the Harvard cartel could have resulted in literally millions of unnecessary deaths. If you aren’t still seeing the links between Harvard, Dana Farber, the Broad Institue and Brigham & Women’s (Surgisphere15) a map might help - they are literally walking distance from each other.
Remember that at Harvard, if you are a female professor who didn’t write for Jeffrey Epstein’s magazine you will be publicly discredited for any data manipulation associated with your papers. But if you are in the right club, like Ariely, you’ll apparently be fine.
Just to drive home the point - the four authors of this now totally discredited and proven fraud that almost certainly led to deaths, are also fine.
Which begs the question - did Francesca Gino know something that made her a target? Perhaps that’s an article for another day, but Sabine Hazan thinks the mice seem to have sniffed something out.
In the meantime if you aren’t quite up on the story behind the Surgisphere fraud you can do no better than watching this fantastic and enlightening exposé from our very good friend John Davidson. The making of this film relied solely on donations and good will so please feel free to send either or both along to John at brokentruth.com
CRIS-PR: the propaganda machine
Just like with the Surgisphere scandal (sometimes called Lancetgate), for the push towards the economic holy grail of global CRISPR to be acceptable to reasonable people (most of whom don’t want their genome edited by elites), a PR machine is necessary. And it is deeply embedded in the CRISPR institutions.
This Nature “paper” from 2015 is the biggest example of PR spin masquerading as science that you will ever see. “CRISPR germline engineering - the community speaks”
All the players are there, and the good stuff is in the supplementary archived16 in the footnotes, but here are some doozies from people you might already be familiar with
J. Craig Venter: I think that human germline engineering is inevitable, and there will be basically no effective way to regulate or control the use of gene editing technology in human reproduction.
Jonathan Moreno: population biologists suggested 40 years ago that it might be advisable to establish a bank of traits that have been screened out of populations, just in case they need to be reintroduced into the gene pool.
Naldini: The main current societal risk is the backlash from an exaggerated but potentially pervasive view that gene-editing technologies will lead to science-fiction scenarios in which humans are bred upon design leading to a whole array of unanticipated effects
Zhang: Where do we draw the boundary of what is an acceptable biological trait for editing in the germline and what is not?… as we become more comfortable with the safety of germline editing, should we allow editing to remove mutations that do not cause early-onset disease … What about height, appearance and intelligence? Where do we draw the line?
Cohen: Greater risk if allowed to progress to discretionary, “designer gene” programs. The science fiction nightmare of an Orwellian totalitarian state or an Hitlerian society employing genetic engineering to achieve only “desirable” traits could ultimately happen, though we are nowhere close to this capability today.
But I think - for obvious reasons to those that have followed this blog since 2021 - my favourite quote must be this one
Kim: In an ideal world, germline genome editing would be available and affordable to everyone. No parents with a fatal genetic mutation would transfer their faulty gene to their children. In an unequal society, however, germline genome editing will be affordable to the rich only, resulting in a “gene divide”, as predicted in the film, “GATTACA”.
Of course when nature published that paper in 2015, “the community” only referred to those already high up in the biological-weapons-genome-editing hierarchy, who have vested interests in not letting grass roots scientists speak if it might jeopardise the trillion dollar industry.
Some 8 years later, Nature returned with this article telling us how “safe and effective” CRISPR is, so we needn’t worry. Of course the person being interviewed in the article just happens to be from UCSF, Jennifer Doudna’s institute. No conflicts of interest were declared, because, well, you know.
Thankfully for us, and the greater good, Doudna’s institute can now deliver this “safe and effective” therapy in a targeted manner without those pesky adenoviral vectors, just like the mRNA genetic vaccines were so much better than the AstraZeneca duds, remember?
Can you see how this is panning out yet?
The whiff of WEF everywhere
One of the things that we have learned over the last 4 years of biofascism masquerading as “pandemic preparedness” is that everywhere you see an attempt to impose medical treatments on others, you will find the World Economic Forum (WEF). And CRISPR is no different.
Here is Haoyi Wang for the WEF telling us how they are going to harness gene editing for multiple and permanent genetic changes.
And here is our friend Jennifer Doudna espousing the virtues of one of her companies (Mammoth Biosciences) on behalf of the World Economic Forum. I bet you couldn’t have seen that coming.
Of course the World Economic Forum, who seem to be behind everything [bad] in the world, are “committed to improving the state of the world”.
They are the self-styled arbiters of what should happen in the world, and thankfully are all over the field of genome editing with their white paper here17 and articles “How gene editing is changing the world” and “5 things to know about CRISPR in the COVID era” featuring the above video with Jennifer Doudna.
Remember too that this is the same World Economic Forum that told you that “You will own nothing and be happy” by 2030. Otherwise known as global fascism, because obviously someone WILL own all the stuff - it just won’t be you.
Which presumably means that you also won’t be owning your genome.
Well why would you? You’ll be happy with Klaus Schwab owning it, right? And Klaus and his buddies, who are by implication suggesting that they should own everything, will get to decide what genome editing will make the world (i.e. you) better.
The below section of the WEF’s video “Technologists share visions of our future world” spells it out for you with buzzy catchphrases like “We have to figure out a new age”, “Improving biology” and “Write a new code for life”.
Super.
Here’s the bit about gene editing, which by the way nonchalantly acknowledges that the COVID-19 vaccines were part of this technological enhancement of the global population.
The video goes on to talk about diminished reality glasses that will “allow you to remove things from your view, whether that’s garbage or other people”. Subliminal messaging that says “other people = garbage”.
I’m sure that these WEF players are really lovely people to meet at a dinner party - but they certainly are the very last people you want in charge of this technology.
And if you think that’s bad, listen to this guy - Noah Harari, the World Economic Forum’s chief transhumanist - who takes it to another level in his TED talk, telling us that human rights do not exist, because you can’t touch them or feel them or see them. Because they are not a “not a biological reality” that means that human rights do not exist. Lovely.
Of course he goes on to tell us that God doesn’t exist, nor countries, nor money. They are “all just stories”. It is necessary for the WEF to get you to believe these things so that you give up your belief in God, free will, human rights, nation states and property. This is the ultimate utopia of the global fascist-socialist politburo - depicted in every dystopian novel - and they are dressing it up in almost reasonable language so you fall for it.
Don’t. It’s literally GATTACA and Brave New World and 1984 rolled into one and they18 are sitting back laughing at how much they have hoodwinked the population.
At this juncture it might be worth pointing out what I hope will be the main take-home of this two-part series:
The most important thing to have learnt from these two articles is that there is nothing that is fundamentally or legally different between the idea that you can mandate a genetic vaccine on the population vs mandating a genetic editing technology on the population.
The law has already been established, if we allow Kassam vs Hazzard to remain unchallenged.Back to the law
Which takes us back to Dr Chris Rudge from Part 1 of this series. Yes the very same Chris Rudge that produced the article essential to underwriting Justice Beech-Jones justification for removing human rights from the Australian population.
One of the world’s experts in the history of the eugenicist Huxley family, is one of the people that is now curating commonwealth law on genome editing. Cool.
The paper ominously states:
Based on our analysis, we argue that the development of national genome editing policies should focus on five particular themes. These are (1) embedding equity and other values and principles in human genome editing policy; (2) ensuring that therapy, enhancement and other applications are appropriately regulated; (3) deciding what types of human genome editing research should be allowed and supported, recognising differing views on the status of the human embryo; (4) preparing for a future when heritable human genome editing may be shown to be safe and effective and (5) building meaningful public participation into the governance of human genome editing.
I’ll reiterate this line
(4) preparing for a future when heritable human genome editing may be shown to be safe and effective
So now that heritable genome editing is going to be “safe and effective” (defined no doubt by the same people that said the gene therapy vaccines were safe and effective) there is nothing to stop the circle of justice involving the likes of Robert Beech-Jones, now elevated to the high court, determining that:
“Gene editing vaccines have been determined to be safe and effective by the appropriate authorities and therefore the rights of the individual to refuse such vaccines are not sufficient to override the demands of the public health order mandating these vaccines for all workers in Australia”
Because, nobody stopped them in 2021. So why on earth, after the precedent was set by Beech-Jones and ruled lawful on appeal, should anybody stop them making this minor amendment to the now-established law?
In case you really didn’t see this coming here again is Justice Robert Beech-Jones making his “technology usurps your rights” speech shown in Part 1.
And who will challenge these judges, who believe that human rights do not exist when it comes to a manufactured situation that suits a particular agenda?
Nobody. Because they don’t even need to answer the public.
This is the very same judge’s response to public questioning in the Australian COVID Royal Commission submissions this week. Justice Beech-Jones declined to answer, so the court answered for him. And what was their response?
In case you can’t spot it their response was to reference as a defence the very paper written by Wilson and Rudge defending the mandates which coerced the population to receive genetic therapy vaccines as a condition of availing themselves of the declared human rights in article 23.1 of the UN declaration of human rights which states
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
The very Chris Rudge who was reciprocally endorsed by Justice Beech-Jones on his elevation to the high court of Australia presumably as a consequence of his “excellent” work in abrogating those very human rights of Australians (and by extension the Commonwealth) that the World Economic Forum say don’t exist.
So, if you think the judiciary will be protecting you against being forced to take any gene therapy product, whatever they call it, in the future - think again.
The only way that this won’t happen is either that the principles of legalised coercion validated in Kassam vs Hazzard are overturned, or the people standing to make trillions of dollars from their patented products suddenly develop an ethical conscience.
Which one do you think stands the best chance?
Welcome to Gilead GATTACA. Via Harvard.
/End
Protospace adjacent motif https://sg.idtdna.com/pages/Support/FAQs/what-is-a-pam-sequence-and-where-is-it-located
Novavax was marketed as a “protein vaccine” but is subject to the same plasmid contamination problem as Pfizer and Moderna gene therapy products - because the DNA plasmid that makes the RNA that makes the protein product may not have been decontaminated effectively, and the regulators didn’t bother looking for it.
Codon optimisation is a process by which genome nerds recreate a protein (which is a sequence of amino acids) using a genetic (nucleotide) sequence that is different from the original genetic sequence that produced the protein, but creates the same sequence of amino acids. This is possible because there only 20 amino acids but 64 combinations of the 3 nucleotides that code for each amino acid, giving redundancy. For example Arginine is coded by either AGA or AGG; Glycine by GGA, GGT, GGC or GGG. So if you have a nucleotide sequence AGAGGG and change it to AGGGGT you will still get the same amino acids and therefore protein (in theory). There are however consequences of tinkering in this manner and the result may not always be what you expect.
A hat tip to
for steel-manning this analysis with me. Hopefully we will get chance to explore it further in another article.You can look this up for yourself by performing a BLAST analysis of the Pfizer, Moderna or Novavax sequence against the human genome. This is the result
Court transcript and archive linked here
https://t.me/arkmedic/9103
This is why we keep archives. The original story here has been reduced to a single paragraph by Buzzfeed news.
Genetics pioneer George Church on support for human gene editing: As long as it’s open to everyone—rich or poor: Archived
Named #NotesGate and immortalised in Shez’s substack here
This twitter account was central to the #CRISPRgate scandal unveiled on twitter back in January.
If you want to know more about this I suggest following the #GinoGate hashtag on twitter and definitely follow Jurassic Carl.
The official address of the Surgisphere company is Chicago, but the lead author on the paper was at Brigham and Women’s
https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3227 supplementary:
The World Economic Forum, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg group and their related entities that control the global money supply via “think tanks”.